Iii. Experiences of Iwt Multimodal Transport in Europe and the United States
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
III. EXPERIENCES OF IWT MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES A. Europe Multimodal container transport has grown tremendously in Europe over recent years. Thanks to an adapted infrastructure and adequate facilitation, traffic has been able to grow, often at a two-digit rate, throughout the last two decades. 1. Infrastructure To permit this growth, a number of infrastructure elements have been created. (a) Numerous container terminals The first batch of container gantries was installed on the Rhine as far back as 1968, only two years after the first fully cellular ship arrived in Europe. However, in this new trade, which seemed to be vying for speed, it took some time for the deep-sea operators to consider the IWT option, which was purported to be slow. A number of container lines failed for lack of response by the market. However, in the early 1980s, the cost savings brought about by fully dedicated river containerships was recognized, and local interests started building new container terminals, the farthest inland at Basel, Switzerland, 870 km from the sea. Today, there are some 40 container terminals along the banks of the Rhine. They serve the container transport on the Rhine and its seaports in the delta, mainly Rotterdam in the Netherlands and Antwerp in Belgium. Similarly, on the Rhone and Seine rivers in France, services started in the 1990s, with eight inland terminals. In Germany also, some terminals were built in other river basins, such as the Danube, Elbe and Weser. Each of these smaller basins serves a large seaport, such as Le Havre, Dunkirk and Marseille in France, and Hamburg and Bremen in Germany. Finally, in Belgium and the Netherlands, there are some 20 terminals servicing their respective seaports, Antwerp and Rotterdam. -19- (b) Suitable waterway network This container transport, however, is limited to routes where the necessary gauge can be found. A great facility in Western Europe is the free-flowing Rhine, unimpeded by locks and with ample vertical clearance under bridges, allowing four layers of containers up to Strasbourg in France, 700 km inland. It is on this river that major development has taken place, with more than 1 million containers crossing, for instance, the border between Germany and the Netherlands. Canalized waterways, with so-called “European Gauge” locks (12 m wide and more than 110 m long), are also used for container traffic. The vertical clearance has often been critical, and most of the successful container services plying waterways allow three layers of containers. Some canals are even larger than the European Gauge, for instance the Scheldt- Rhine Canal between Rotterdam and Antwerp, where the locks are 24 m wide and the use of barges with four layers of containers is sometimes possible. The traffic on this particular waterway is of the same magnitude as on the Rhine, which shows the benefit that two close ports can derive from a strong waterway connection. However, there are examples of services plying with only two layers of containers, for instance in the northern part of France or in the Netherlands. As is the case for vertical restrictions, there are instances where services are profitable even in narrower waterways, for instance in France and the Netherlands. There is a plan to develop the use of so-called Neo Kemp, which can squeeze a maximum number of containers in smaller canals. In addition, there are talks in France of developing a “Freycinet 2000”, plying in the smaller network with only one layer of containers and a capacity of 10 TEUs. The reason behind these investment proposals is that the cost of barging is only a fraction of the total door-to-door transport cost, and that by bringing the containers closer to the market, the savings on the road leg are expected to be far greater than any augmentation of IWT cost. Road transport, hampered by road congestion and overcrowded access to terminals, cannot guarantee delivery time in all cases. However, inland waterways are free from traffic congestion. -20- (c) Adapted vessels In Europe, the main concern is the vertical Figure III.1 clearance under bridges. Accordingly, all European designs but one are using hopper barges, in which the containers are lowered much in the same way as in a ship. All started with normal bulk barges, which accommodated only three rows of containers, because of slanted sides, and three layers only, owing to stability considerations. A Europa II pushed barge, 11.4-m wide, could in that way accommodate 90 to 99 TEUs. The pusher had to use a telescopic wheelhouse (figure III.1) to be able to see above and in front of this high barge. Photo by courtesy of CFNR Soon self-propelled barges were introduced, mainly by owner-operators. Quickly, it was found possible to squeeze in the hold of an 11.4-m wide barge four rows of containers, giving the possibility to stack four to five Figure III.2 layers and increase capacity up to 220 TEUs. Barges were further lengthened up to 110 m, thus carrying up to 280 TEUs (in five layers). Combined with a pushed barge like the one shown in figure III.1, such a unit loads up to 480 TEUs with five layers. Finally, wider barges have been used, some of which are also cellular vessels (figure III.2). These vessels carry up to 480 TEUs. Figure III.3 There is also the Neo Kemp, mentioned earlier, as seen in figure III.3. Like some Pearl River Delta barges, it stacks barges across, and has its own crane. It holds 40 TEUs and can squeeze into a fine network of smaller waterways, bringing it closer to the clients. -21- On the larger waterways, Figure III.4 pushed convoys of four barges can move up to 800 TEUs at the same time. Figure III.4 shows a barge convoy carrying 447 TEUs in a pushed three-barge convoy, with a total capacity of 607 TEUs, more than many sea-going feeder ships. There appears to be no limit to what IWT can offer, such as the river shuttles between Antwerp and Rotterdam, which carry in a coordinated manner 650,000 TEUs per year, on behalf of four different barge operators. 2. Facilitation There have been a number of areas in which container trade has obtained concessions not available to other goods carriage. (a) No tonnage limitation One of the strong points for IWT has been that, from the start, container traffic on European rivers has been exempt from limitations, imposed by governments or the profession, regarding the tonnage of barges. This has been specifically noticeable in France and in the Netherlands, where there are controls on size and overall capacity of fleet. All European countries have load limitations for trucks to protect road pavement and the environment. The legislation passed by the EU restricts the maximum weight of tractor- trailers to 40 gross tonnes, except for combined transport operations and some multimodal transport operations in the vicinity of seaports. This load limitation is 28 tonnes in Switzerland. The maximum payload on a normal 40-tonne European trailer is 26 to 28 tonnes, depending on the number of axles and the weight of the trailer. Assuming two containers are carried on the same trailer, on the same route to or from the same address, each container then can be 13 to 14 tonnes. -22- However, the same road trailer can load up to 44 tonnes if in combined transport, which means more or less 2 tonnes more weight for each container. Combined transport, and not only by IWT, thus has a niche market with the 15 to 16 gross tonnes of payload, because it reduces the cost of the road leg, which normally accounts for about half of the total cost of a combined transport. (b) Free rates Another point is that the rates are also free, providing an added incentive for barge owners. Not that they necessarily have very good rates, but at least they are free to decide whether to run at these prices or not. On all other trades, official freight rates are imposed, and very often this translates into prices too high to attract customers, who then choose other modes of transport. (c) ICD status The trade really picks up when river terminals are given ICD status by the sea operators, allowing customers to pick up or return empty containers inland, instead of being obliged to do so at the seaport, thus saving one leg of the route. This also ensures flexibility in obtaining containers at short notice, and customers are therefore easily attracted to this system, which is less cumbersome and far cheaper than road operations. This ICD status is neither a right nor a favour; it is actually brought about by the market itself as soon as an area has shown to be a good traffic area. Then, operators find it more convenient to leave the empty containers where they are, rather than bringing them back to the port, and shifting them back later to the same inland location to meet the demand. (d) Expeditious customs clearance Another positive point is the possibility to complete customs formalities inland. Thanks to a general movement in favour of facilitation this has been made easier every year and the number of inland customs outlets is rising everywhere. IWT has not been the only beneficiary, but often, inland ports have been the forerunners in attracting these bureaus. Lately, it has been agreed on the Seine River that all customs documentation remaining in the seaport can be done while the barge is under way, which transforms the barge into a moving warehouse, similar to, for example, the “virtual gate” seen in Hong Kong, China.